STATE OF POLITICAL PARTIES. \^.- SPEECH OF HON. F. K. ZOLLIGOFRER, w OP TENNESSEE, 12^ THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES, APRIL 3, 1856. The Souse beiiig in the Committee of the Whole j the Union, with or without, slarery, as they on the state of the Union — | may determine for themselves. Mr. ZOLLICOFFER said : j B'lt I .'laid that there was a good deal of ver- Mr. Chaibman: When jny colleague [Mr. biage in the section which I did not think at o T u J 1 J J u- 1 V •^<.^ 'all necessary; and havmg passed my pencil SMrrnl had concluded his remarks on Friday, ,' ^.^ •'' ^ ,., * 'j * „„„„ ;-„i .. .,:■,, . , , 1 r over the words I did not deem essential, gen- in which he appropriated so large a share of, ^j^,^^,^ ^,.^^^ ^.^^^ present will remember that his time to an examination into my personal { presented what I designated as the "pith politics, I immediately sought the floor for re- i and marrow" of the section. I +;£.id further, -.1 * .1 1 i.1 • ii c • i\. I cause it embodied the same principle — wun-ii other gentlemen; and this, therefore, is the!:"^ .^ . . , ,. - • *i xt L i i. first opportunity I have had to respond. ! '^^ \he principle assereu in the Nobnxska act, My colleague brings my pohtical action morej^ 1 ""^^e^'^t^d it-taough it is bu frank to prominently before the House than any merit ' ^a^' that among the supporters of ihat mea- in it deserves, and he has been pleased to at- 1 ^^^'^ there is a variety of inter,.retations, tribute to me a position of indnence in Tennes- i among which is one assuming that i^ rccog- see such as I do not claim, and to which I have ! "i^t^^h^ right of a \en-it^ori^l Leg.sla ure to no just title. But I am pleased that, in thelP^^^^it slavery, which I have always denied, searching examination he ha;5 made, he has j Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. 1 dp not wish- been able to make only such points upon my ! to consume any of my colkaguo's time. I only political record as were founded in a mi"sappre- ! ask a question, that he may explain m regard hension of the facts; and I feel obliged to him t to the point suggested. If iJae seventh section for thus giving me an opportunity to correct i of the new platform embraced the principle of the misapprehensions which have to some ex- j the twelfth section of the old one, why was the tent gone out to the country through the news- 1 old one abolished and the new one adopted? papers. I Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. It may have been My colleague it! mistaken in supposing that! because my colleague and the political orators ^ I ever called the platfoi-m of the American land editors of his party had so fiercely assailed pai'ty the " verbiage platform," or that I used ! the twelfth section. They profcj|^ed then^ the word "verbiage" in reference to that plat- j (however much they are noxo in love with it,) form at all. I did address the National Coun- 1 to regard it as a miserably "uneoard " sec- cil of the American party when the platform tion. The official organ of thj Aduauiistration, was under consideration, and I did u.se the| the Washington Union, ev^m as late as the 16th word " verbiage" in reference to the twelfth | February last, denounced it as embodying " a section of the platform adopted in June, 1855. ; discreditable and inexcusable concession tO' I stated that I was lor the substance of that ' Abolitionism." The organ of Democracy at twelfth section ; that I \varmly approved oi i Nashville called it a " wishy-washy" concern, the principles it embodied; that the people of i which "refused to sanction the principle of the the Territories, in framing tm^r State consti- { Nebraska bill." These are bi;t sarop'es of a tutions had, and ought to have, tho right to [ thousand similar assaults throughout the lines determine the character of tiieir own local | of Southern Democracy — while at the North institutions; and that States thus framed jit was actively assailed as a "surrender to should have the privilege of admission into the sZaue vower.''^ 1 say it may be tha'; these things had their influence. But I speak i alone for myself — not iinclertrtking to state t!ie position of other members of the Council — ■'• while I approved the " pith and maiTOw " of the twelfth section, I was willing to accept the j seventh section of the present platform in heu, \ because it embodied the same principle. I My colleague makes the point against me, ' that the thirteenth sectioii ^embraces a specill- catioa against the Administration for " reopen- ' ing sectional agitation by a repeal of the Mis- , .'^ouri Compromise." I will inform my colleague ' that I proposed to strike out that specification, and everj'^ specification in the thirteenth sec- tion ; but, there being much disorder at the | time, 1 failed to succeed. I did not think the; Administration had brought about a repeal of the Missouri Compromise. I knew that when Senator Dixon first proposed that repeal, the organ of the Administration at Washington assailed liim promptly, and long afterwards declared that support of the Nebrnska bill ought not to be regarded ai' a Dcinocratic test. The question was subsequently about being ])ut in the American Council, Shall the new platform be adopted in lieu of the old"? when some member proposed a division of the ques- tion, which was agreed to, and the vote was first taken upon sti'iking out the old platform. T voted against striking out, but the proposi- tion cairicd. Then the question recurred upon the adoption of the rimo platfonn. f voted /r>;' its adoption. 1 did it just as I voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill, in 1854, with some minor objections, which I stated at the time. AVhen the Nebraska bill came from the Senate, it embraced, for example, the Clayton amend- ment, restricting the elective franchise to citi- zens of the United States. I preferred the bill in that shape, as T explained. But a substi- tute was oflered in the House, leaving out the Clayton amendment, and I voted for that sub- stitute, behaving that if those who thought with me should make a point upon that par- ticular amendment, harmony among the fi'iends of the bill might be so far disturbed as to en- danger the bill. I was for the bill earnestly as a whole ; and the positions taken in my argu- ment at the time I have at all times stead ily maii^ined — before my constituents — here, since I murned to this Hall — at Philadelphia— every where, where I have discussed the question. But to make the most of that specification in the platform, it is but an expression as to a Jy- gone issue, while the seventh section of the platform lays down a vital principle of action i'or the jyrcsent and the future covering the whole ground, and re-asserting the leadingprin- ciple embodied both in the old 12th section and in the Nebraska act. Mr. JONES, of Tennessee. V.'ith my col- league's permission, I desire to ask one ques- tion. It is not my habit to inteiTUpt gentlemen and I should not do so now, but from the fact ^^\\ .T-^* that it is claimed in some places, and particu- larly in our own State, that that twelfth, sec- tion recognises the same principle which is contained in the Kansas-Nebraska act, and that it recognises the right in the people of the Ten-itory of Kansas to prohibit or admit sla- veiy while in a Territorial condition, I ask my colleague if he so construes that severtth sec- tion ? Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. I stated ray position a few moments since upon that precise point. I placed it on record when the Nebraska bill was on its passage, and T beg leave to say to niv colleague [Mr. Jones] that I cannot now properly consume more time in dweUing upon it. My colleague [Mr. SMirn] objects to the plat- form adopted by the American part}', because it has not the word " slavery" in it, and he ar- gues that thereby, and therefore, we jpn^rethe question of slavery. Mr. Chairman, it is a lit- tle romarksble that the very next gentleman who followed my colleague in debate — the Re- publican member from New York [Mr. Grax- gek] — made an argument that slavery is ig- : nored by the Constitutions of the General and ; State Governments because the word, slavery .is not to be found in the Constitution of the United States, and was not to be found in the \ constitutions of any of the original thirteen \ States. My colleague then bases his objection to that section of the platform upon the precise line of argument which Repub- licans and Abolitionists assume in denying the ; legal existence of slavery — in denying that the constitutions of the States, and the Constitution of the United States have recognised the insti- tution, because the tcord " slavery" is not in- serted in them. Does he not see into what i fatal errors such assumptions lead ? My colleague expressed i-egret tliat I had re- marked, in debate here, that I regarded men who lived in the South, and believed in the ; constitutionality of the Wilmot Proviso, as being, though not intending it, more danger- \ ous to the South tha,n Northern Abolitionists. Here, again, my colleague does not present I correctly the sentiment which I uttered. It 1 will be remembered that, on the 17th of Janu- i ary last, a distinguished member from Georgia, [Mr. Stepuevs,] seeing me reported in the Globe of that day, somewhat as my cisileague ' now reports me, propounded questions which enabled me promptly to state the idea I wished ; to be understood as expressing. 1 then stated ; (see Appendix Congressional Globe, pp. 57, oS, 59.) that what I meant to say was, that the theory of the constitutionality of the Wilmot Proviso, particularly if held by Southern men, '■ was more dangerous, and had done more dam- I age, to the constitutional rights of the South- ern States than the open efforts of Northern Abolitionists. I explained that I did not viean to say that gentlemen who entertained that be- lief were less patriotic thscn those who believed | as I do, that the Federal Government h.as no j such constitutional power. T did not say that i theij were more dangerous than Northern Abolitionists, but that that theory or j)o- \ litical doctrine was more dangerous, and had done more damage to the South than the open : efforts of Abolitionists. On the conti'ai-y, I ex- ' pressly stated that there were man)' patriotic, national men who had fallen into that erronc- ! ous theory. >Iy colleague's vindication of their I patriotism, therefore, and his remark that he i would prefer to vote for such a man than to i vote for an out-and-out Free-Soiler, would seem ; to give rise (however intended) to an erroneous ■ inference as to what my actual position was. j Why do 1 think that that theory ol the Con- ; stitution is more dangerous than the open ef- \ forts of avowed Abolitionists V The open efforts of avowed Abolitionists are impotent for harm, i because the masses of the American people ! sternly reprobate them a.? inimical to the i Constitution and to tlie stability of the govern- 1 ment ; but, when Southern statesmen, whose patriotic purposes are not doubted, gravely de- clare that they beUeve the AVilmot Proviso is constitutional, the politicians and people of the North are not slow to adopt this theory ; and! then the only question left with them is, is it ; expedient to enact the Wilmot Proviso? Be- 1 lieving, as the masses in tbe North do, that j slavery is wrong, regarding it as " obnoxious," ] as leading Democrats do, whom my colleague ! regards as sound and true statesmen, is it .won- derful what demoiiistrations we have had in > the North in favor of the Wilmot Proviso af- ' ter the surrender of the constitutional ques- tion by those trusted at the South J The let- ' ter of Mr. Buchanan of the 28th of December last, published in the newspapers of this city a few days ago, is a striking illustration of the damage which that constitutional surrender has done the South. Mr. Buchanan had been an advocate of the Missouri restriction ; he had labored to extend the line proliibiting slavery, as marked out by Federal power, to the Paci- fic ocean. He now agrees that " the Missouri Compromise," as he calls it, " is gone, and gone forever."- ''But," lie say.^, " no assault should be made upon those Democrats who maintained it." " It is well known how I la- bored, in company with Southern men, to have this line extended to the Pacific ocean." Now, mark the palliation, " in compaiiy with Southern men," which this powerful and ti'usted statesman feels constrained to make for his departure from the true constitutional the- ory of the (government ! The Federal Govern- ment has no constitutional power to prohibit sla- very in the Territories ; and the true theory is now asserted in the American platform, that" the people of the Territories, in forming their State constitutions, have the right to determine this question for themselves. But is it not a little remarkable that the sarae politicians and nevrspai)ers which but a few weeks ago were assailing the American party for " pretermitting" this question in tho twelflh section of tlie June platform, now assail me because \ assume that it was a great error for Southern men to concede that the F.^deral Government had such powers? A few days before the Philadelphia Convention met, in Feliruary last, the Washington Union, ^.isail- ing that twelfth section, said : " It is a fatal surrender of the groundwork 'f true nationalitii to €xpressl{i pretermit an opinion as to the power of Congress to prohibit or estab- lish slavery in the Territories." * * * " During this long struggle (for Speaker) we have yet to see the evidence that Mrssrs. Marshidl, Zollicoft'cr, or any other of their Southern brethren, conceded that the Nebraska bill was an obnoxious act, or that the repeal of the Missouri restriction was a breach of plighted faith." * * * " How can these gen- tlemen now go into the Philadelphia Convention, and agree to allow the unsound clauses in the twelfth section, to winch we have directed atteiUion, to stand as the rule of their nationality V" This is but one of many examples. Now, however, when we have a platform which does not "pretermit" this question, and it is dis- closed that the most exalt-, if not expressly to give to the elect their man? He surmised that the diiH- proposed teatRn R\r of jDe?7iocra'tic 2Jre-arrange- culty probably grew out of unsettled questions ???e??^, (which was, of course, distasteful to as to how the committees sho'^ld be fc^rmed. Americans, v,'ho, in a spirit of liberality, al- He asked, if the majority cannot organize the \ ready yielded everything but principle,) at House, "who can do it, and how can it bo! least with a view of forcing a direct test be- done?" He could not "vote for the man whoitween Aiken and Banks, under the plurality entertains the principles of that party;" but; rule. And this, too, when Democrats had re- he said, " I want to sec an organization, and I ; fused to vote for an Amei'ican under any cir- hope it will soon be effected.'' ' i cumstanccs ! Subsequently there were various proposi- ^ Mr. SMITH, of Tennessee. If my colleague tions made to institute the plurality rule. They ; will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, failed, by diat of the united votes of National I desire to ask him this question : Did not a Americans and Democrats, with a few Repub- '. sufficient number of Americans vote for the licans who were opposed to Mr. Banks." This gentleman from South Carolina, [Mr. Aiken,] brought about a discussion among members as the day before, to have elected bim on the first to what would be the effect of that rule. The vote under the plurality rule ; and whether, if question was-r.l^o discussed in the newspapers, i the same members of the American party who And what was the public opinion in the House [voted for Governor Aiken on the day before and out of the House? What was the opinion . had voted for him on the day the election took of Southern iiiCn, Northern men, Democrats, place, it would not have elected him? Americans, and Sepubiicans? Why, that if; Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. It is trne that the the plurality -jujIp was adopted Mr. Banks American party had voted for Governor Aike^ uould ]>c elected Speaker ! , Under these cir- ' voluntarily ; but they had not voted for him cumstanees, my colleague, on the 2d of Febru- ! under the circumstances which existed when ary, renewed the proposition to adopt the plu- the election took place. They had not voted rality rule. He seems to have solved, in his for him when the candidate of the Democratic own mind, the question, " Who can do it, and party had withdrawn. They had not voted for hoiD c-an it J^ dore?^'' His proposition was him when the Democratic party had united carried by Republican votes, and those of a '■ with the Republicans in forcing on us the few Democrats, to-wit : Messrs. Barclay, \ plursjity rule. And sir, this union took place Clingman, Herbert, Hickman, Jewett, Kelly, i after the gentleman from Georgia, [Mr. Tripfe,] S. A. Smith, and Williams — the National a member of the American party, had stated Americjms and the great boihed colleague, Judge Donglm,'' ^vl^ re- ?ti-ict constructions of the constitution— that ' marks, that in this particular speech, ''he sus- ts elementary principles have ever been the' tained the principles of the Kebras/.abilL.wit/i. ■ame— that it is a true and sound imiiona,] 'great force and e feet T He was giving power- .orty, and should be relied upon to protect the ; iful aid" to Judge Douglas. And what was .•;t^rests and rights ol the South. In this con- 1 Judge Douglas doing? I have no copies of .. •■::on I remember that, having assumed that ' the speeches he was making in Illinois; but I had attempieJ to throw discredit upon the ! have an extract of a letter he addressed to the '•emocratic candidate for Speaker, [Mr. Rick- j editor of the Concord (N. H.) Patriot, dated -■:'S0.\,] he asks if it i.« not time that these • February IG, 1854, in which, speaking of the !\ allegation in ilic North that the Ncbraslva bill opens the whole country to slavery, he asks : j " Why do they not state the matter truly, and i state that it opens the cotintry to freedom^ by leav- ! 5ng the people perfectly free to do as they please?" This is very similai' to sentiments expressed ; by the same distinguished gentleman' in the I Senate, in his spc-ecli on the Territorial ques- \ tion, on the 13th and 14th March, 1850. Hei said : 1 " Last year I introduced a bill for the admission I of all the country acquired from Mexico by the j treaty of peace mto the Union as one State, re- 1 serving the right to form new States out of any i portion of said territory lying east of the Sierra i Nevada mountains." * * " If my bill of last { session had become the law of the land — which it ■ ceitainly would have done if he (Mr. Hale) had . not united his forces with those of the Senator ■ from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun] to defeat it — the whole of the territory acquired from Mexico \ would, at this moment, have been dedicated to free- dom forever, by a constitutional provision.'''' In the same speech, speaking of the effect of his own amendment to the Texas annexation resolution, he said : " While Texas remained an independent Power, it was all slave teri'itory, from the Gulf of Mexico to the forty-second parallel of latitude. By the resolution of annexation, five and a half degrees of this slave territory, to-wit : all between thirty-six and a half and the forty-second parallels were to become ' fixed, pledged, fastened to be \free, and not ' slave territory forever, by the splemn guaran- tees of law.' Here is a territory stretcliing across five and a halt degrees Qihi\A\M(!iQ, withdrawn from slavery and devottd to freedom, by the very act which the Senator [Mr. Webster] has chosen to denounce and deride as the work of the Northern Democracy" " And when the northern Democrats are ar- raigned and condemned for having contributed to the extension of slavery, the jive and a half de- grees of latitude north of 36 deg. 30 min., for which provision was made to be converted from slave into free territory absolutely, and probably double that amount south of that line by the ac- tion of the people themselves when they come to form a State constitution, oiiyht to have been brought to the notice of the public, and put to our credit in the stateiiient of the account." Here we have Judge Donglaii's own inter- pretation of his own action, connected with the three moat momentous viensures toxiching the public territories, for which his southern friends give him so much credit ! fs it not legitimate to present these record fiicts of his- tory V Still it is just to say, that Messrs. Douglas, Shields, and Richardson, are of the very soundest of northern Democrats, and are really entitled to much credit for tlie patriotism and general nationality of tlieir sentiments. They are far better than the masses of the Democratic party at the Nortli, who have been so fearfully compiicated with Free-Soilism and the Wilmot proviso. So generally has tiiis been so, that, after Mr. Pierce's nomination for the Presidency, the Washington Uniljin, edited by a Tennesseean, was forced to ?>b.Y\ — at least, I have often seen this language quoted from it : " The Free-Soil Democratic leaders of the Nonh area reguiar portion of the Democratic pari^; and General Pierce, if elected, will make no dm^.^ tinction between them and, tlie rest of the Derne-A cracy in the distributiori of official patronage, a'rm'< in the selection of agents for administering th'e.;, Government" The public offices were accordingly filled, t a great extent, by Free-soil Democrats fro; the North— such as Dix, Bishop, Cochrane, Fowler, Crocker, &c. — while sound national men — such as Dickinson, Bronson, and others — were neglected or proscribed, W. J. Brown, of Indiana, who would have been made the Democratic Speaker of this House, in the Thirty-Second Congress, but for the acciden- tal discovery that he had given a written pledge to Wilmot that he would compose the committees with Free-soil majorities, was ap- pointed to, and now holds under the Adminis- ti'ation a high and important office. The pre- sent Secretary of the Interior is a Wilmot Proviso Free-soiLer of so strong a type a^s to deny that slaves are pti'operty. Our Minister Plenipotentiary to Russia is a Free-soiler. Of the seventy delegates appointed by the Softs I to attend the Democratic convention in June j next, all were old Buffalo platform Free-soilers 1 of 1848 (says the New York National Demo- i crat) but seven. But I have not time to go further into these prolific details. What is the present ostensible position of the Democratic party V Why, its platform is not founded upon principle at all, but upon a solitary measure — the Nebraska bill — which is construed varion.sIy by its various support- ers. General Cass, for example, heads those who see m it squatter sovereignty; my col- league is of those who understand it very dif- ferently ; General Sliields is of the class who think it a measure '* for freedom ;" and the distinguished C. C. Cambreleng, as orthodox a Democrat as any of them, is in Ipve with it, I because Jie says it will so* operate as to leuve I " not a single square inch of slave territory in j the United States." 1 Where, then, is the identity o£ principle- - 1 where the soundness of the Democratic part}', ! of which my colleague speaks V The same i radical diSerences of opinion which character- { izc them on slavery (juestions, also attend them on other leading branches of public pol- icy'. But my colleague claims that his pailj are 'strict constructionists; and, before I leave this slavery question, let me call attention it I the fact that there is a large section of the D^ ' i mocratic pai'ty who are such strict constrj 1 tionists that they deny that the Federal «mni (cnt had the constitutional right to pass ; ask my colleague whether he did not vote for the \ /iresent fugitive slave lav*-. the great river and harbor bill of last Congress, M k SMITH, of Tennessee. Do T understand which was passed by a large majority in a my (colleague to say that any recognised part j House having a Democratic majority of eighty- of t! he Democratic party at the North resist the I six — which also passed a Democratic Senate, cxe fcution of the fugitive slave law ? j but was vetoed by the President upon the ? Mr. ZOLLICOFFEil. I cite the late distin- ! ground that it was vncomtitutional? gu tshed gentleman from Massachusetts, Robert! Mr. SMITH. I did vota for it, and I should Jls Intoul, Jr., formerly a member of this House, [vote for it again; and I do not look to the /Mr. SMITH. Mr. Rantoul was an Aboli- \ President to form opinions for me upon consti- ti' nnist, and was turned, heels over head, outjtutional questions. o' r the Baltimore Convention, in 1852, upon Mr. ZOLLICOFFER. My argument is thus t'/.iat very account. Mr. ZOLLICOFFEiJ. I will give my col- 1 'eague another instance, not of a Northern man, put a Southf^rn man, I mean the present See- /retary of War, who is reported as saying, in a ,'published speech, that " when any State in the ; I'nion shall choose to set aside the (fugitive illustrated, that there has been no unity of opinion or action among Democrats, either upon the slavery question or any other, unless it is that unity which holds together a body of men of diverse and extreme opinions for the sake of party success. It is proper to say, that while I belong to slave) law, it is within her sovereignty and the American party, and am an ardent Ameri- beyond our power!''' And further to have .said, jean, for reasons which 1 have assigned to my that in such contingency, "/,./(5/'fl7?.e,wi7ZH6'('(??' I constituents, and am ready to assign on all €,{'■'•' tiiy vole to extend the avia of the Federal: i)vor>cr occasions, there'are thoi;e who are said power for her coercion.^-* Such is the extent j to belong to the American or Know-Nothing to which strict construction is carried in the i party frori) whom I differ so widely upon sla- Democratic party ! very questions, ar;d upon other questions, that Now, as we have seen there is no unity of i I can have no political affiliation with them, sentiment among Democrats upon slavery i There were some such for a lime in the Na- questions, where do we discover the unitj^ ? | tional Council at Philadelphia, and I very Is it to be found in questions relating to the ! plain!}" so declared to them. It is right and disposition of the public lands? Look at the 'proper that we should be candid upon such votes taken in this Hall, and you will find that ; matters ; and I think my colleague has fallen the Democratic members have been divided ; into a verjj^ great error in propagating the idea upon every sort of land question. Is it upon the other day, and in his speech a year ago — improvements of rivers and harbors "? — upon i and as he is in the habit of doing— that the the homestead bills? — upon the PaciSc road ? 1 Democracy is a unit in elementary principles, — or any other leading subject of legislation ? j of sound national materials, and oiigiit to be The same contrariety of position is found i securely trusted by the patriotic masses, who ■iniong Democratic members in all! It was t would guard and preserve the Constitution and hut the other day chat the Democratic member | the Union. It is a great fjdlacy, sir. from Virginia [Mr. Letcher] read us a strict' The Americans have nominated sound na- construction lecture upon the Pacific railroad, i tional men for President and Vicu President, rmd yet my colleage is in favor of that mea- who will faithfully regard the constitutional • ure. i rights of every section of the Union. My coi- ^n regard to internal improvements, let me | league says that unless the South can unite, "-^Tre i^^guage here quoted I have seen attribu- 1 fnd defend those men in the North who stand :.?d to the Oktiiiguished gentleman in what pur- ' "7 the guaranties of the Constitution, the Union ports to be an exivact of a speech which was pub- ''' y*'^<'- Why, then, should notUnion-loving lif^hed in the newspa^>ers ; but I am at present ; n^en in the South at once unite upon Millard unable to state what particular speech. l' do not Fillmore? My colleague says the only effect tind the language employeO ia his remarks iu the ; of his nomination is to " divide the South." -enate in 1350, when the present Fugitive Slave ] Why should it do so? Why should the Dem- :;ct was discussed, for which ait he voted, with an ocr.atic party nominate a separate ticket, and expression of the wish that the provision of the . thus " divide the South V 'In the struggle for voted actional community haa been relied on, and State lejrisla- ° . ' .',,'" ' ' . "• tion left to provide for its execution; but express-' ^"•T/''"'^"™^*.^"'^'^^ ^^^^^ ^^^ ^'^ A'^fT!!:" ing a willingness, within the limits of his opinion ' ^^"^^» f^^^'- ^P^^^ f^ proscription what do they ,s to what Congress mav do, to leave to tho bor- 1 ^'■'^'^ by saying the South snould unite ? xMy ier States to frame tbe law as they may think best. ' colleague says the Americans have no hope of As to the language quoted above, I will endeavor ' camang any State in the North. Let him -oon to determine the precise source from which ! wait and see! AVhat States have the I)eino- ;c comes. \crat^ carried? Where is the evidence that « 8 any man they can nominate can bent Millard ' FiUmore ? It is true the Americans have to ; contend against both the Deniocr^*'" ""-^ ^" Dublican parties — the Republicans LIBRARY Ashing to merge everything int( organization against slavery, anc crats desiring to sink every quei Nebraska bill, and itn interpretat conservative men of the North, and West, seeing the danger U. which must follow the formation of two geographical parties, and knowing Mr. Fillmore as the true and tried patriot who guided the ship of State in the storm of 1850, will gather around his standard, and build up a great na- tional party, to stand as a breakwater between those extreme parties which, for political suc- cess, would seem to be ready to put even the stability of the Government to the hazard. Thousands of c(»nservative men in the North, temporarily di-awn into combination with Re- publicans ag£iinst the Nebraska bill, have al- ready abandoned them, and thousands more will continue to do so, as the Republicans more and more disclose the sectional and aboiitioc purposes they have in view. Soon, I trust,. " ch gave them tempOirary lubsided, and their dimen- nk into the comparatively iiion forces which have to exist in the NorthVim ;arded by the Republickns QQQ oQQ Q A keep up the slavery dj- OSO ^^^__". T.ieve that the Democn.ts think it the lest Democratic policy, too. Bo> that, between them, we are likely to have gre^t efforts made to keep up the agitation^ similar to that of 1848 and '49, which came very nea^ dissolving the Union. The Americans stand between this cross-firing — they have to grappk with both Republicans and Democrats — bui they feel that they are strong in their national, conservative sentiments — strong in their can- didates — strong in their duty to the constitu- tion and the Union, and that they will ^ir popular strength from all who would not se- the government destroyed in sectiona] strift FOR SALE AT THE AMERICAN ORGA>? OFFICE. THE WEEKLY AMERICAN ORGAN la published every Saturday on the following Terms: 1 copy, oae year - 3 copies, one year 10 copies, one year $2.00, ■ 6.00 ■ 16.00 1 copy, six months - - $1.00 5 copies, six months - 5.00 10 copies, six months - 8.00 2^" Payments always in advance. All communications on business connected with this paper must be directed to the " American Organ" Washington City, aad be post-paid. \^° These pamphlets can be obtained by addressing "Ameri- can Organ," Washington City, D. C. Frice fl.OO p«r hundred, postage paid. LIBRARY Qp t////7/l'«///«»,.£°'^^^^ss 0^7 898299;,' HOLLINGER pH8J MILL RUN F3-1543